SHREE ROSHAN COLD STORAGE,SAMBHAL vs. PR. CIT , BAREILLY

PDF
ITA 1157/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: the Tribunal within the period of limitation provided under the Act, therefore, sought for condonation of the delay. For the reasons stated in the application filed by the Assessee for condonation of delay, the delay of 350 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned.5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

An assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed for AY 2017-18, determining the assessee's income. The PCIT subsequently invoked Section 263, finding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and set it aside, directing a fresh assessment. The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal involved a 350-day delay, which was condoned due to the death of a partner.

Held

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed an ex-parte order under Section 263 without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite notices being issued. To ensure substantial justice and a decision on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the PCIT for de-novo adjudication, instructing the assessee to cooperate.

Key Issues

Whether the PCIT's ex-parte order under Section 263, passed without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, was sustainable, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Sections Cited

Section 143(3), Section 263, Explanation 2(a) to Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH’ G’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 29/04/2024Pronounced: 30/04/2024

1 ITA No. 1157/Del/2023 Shree Roshan Cold Storage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH’ G’: NEW DELHI

BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1157/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2017-18)

Shree Roshan Cold Pr. CIT Storage Central Revenue VPO Rustampur, Village Vs. Building, Kamla Nehru Niyawali, Sambhal, Marg, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh-244302 Bariely, Uttar Pradesh PAN-AAGFS7012N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv Respondent by Sh. Dharm Veeer Singh, CIT- DR

Date of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/04/2024

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Braeilly [“Ld.

PCIT”, for short], dated 04/03/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 1157/Del/2023 Shree Roshan Cold Storage 2. There is a delay of 350 days in filing the present Appeal and

an application for condonation of delay has been filed by the

Assessee stating that one of the partners of the Assessee firm was

suffering from illness of cancer and expired on 28/09/2022 and the

impugned order of the PCIT was kept by the deceased which was

not known to the other partner, therefore, could file the Appeal

before the Tribunal within the period of limitation provided under

the Act, therefore, sought for condonation of the delay. For the

reasons stated in the application filed by the Assessee for

condonation of delay, the delay of 350 days in filing the present

Appeal is condoned.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, an order u/s 143(3) came to be

passed on 30/12/2019 by computing the income of the Assessee at

Rs. 11,83,611/- as against returned income of Rs. 9,58,149/-. The

Ld. PCIT has exercised the power conferred u/s 263 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and of the opinion that the

assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act

is erroneous, in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

as per Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 of the Act, accordingly vide

3 ITA No. 1157/Del/2023 Shree Roshan Cold Storage order dated 04/03/2022 set aside the assessment order and

directed the A.O. to frame fresh assessment by keeping in view of

the observation made by the Ld. PCIT, which is under challenge by

the Assessee in the present Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. PCIT

passed ex-parte order impugned wherein the Assessee has not been

provided opportunity of being heard, therefore, sought for

remanding the matter to the file of PCIT for fresh consideration.

5.

Per contra, the Departmental Representative submitted that

the Assessee has been provided with sufficient opportunities which

have not been utilized by the Assessee and further by relying on the

findings and the conclusion of the order impugned, the

Departmental Representative sought for dismissal of the Appeal

filed by the Assessee.

6.

We have heard the parties perused the material available on

record. During the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act the Ld. PCIT has

issued notice on 02/02/2022 and 12/02/2022 fixing the case on

11/02/2022 and 22/02/2022 respectively. However, no

compliance has been made by the Assessee to both the notices and

4 ITA No. 1157/Del/2023 Shree Roshan Cold Storage no reply/submission made by the Assessee, therefore, the Ld. PCIT

passed an ex-parte order by setting aside the assessment order and

directed the A.O. to frame the de-novo assessment. On going

through the order of the PCIT, it is found that the Ld. PCIT has not

decided the issued on merit and passed the order impugned

without hearing the Assessee. In our considered opinion, if an

opportunity of being heard given to the Assessee and decide the

issue on merit by the Ld. PCIT, substantial justice would be

rendered. Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of the PCIT

for de-novo adjudication with a direction to the Assessee to fully co-

operate with the proceedings before the Ld. PCIT.

7.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open Court on 30th April, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/04/2024 R.N, Sr.ps

5 ITA No. 1157/Del/2023 Shree Roshan Cold Storage Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

SHREE ROSHAN COLD STORAGE,SAMBHAL vs PR. CIT , BAREILLY | BharatTax